ATLANTA (Legal Newslne) - Trial judges went too far when they stripped Ford Motor Co. of nearly all its defenses in a truck-rollover lawsuit that ended with a $1.7 billion jury verdict, a Georgia appeals court ruled.
Pretrial sanctions against Ford left the jury with only the question of whether crash victims Melvin and Voncile Hill suffered before they died and whether punitive damages were justified, the appeals court said. Other basic fact questions, including whether truck’s roof design was defective, were deemed to be established as a penalty against Ford for violating court orders in a first trial that ended in mistrial.
The reversal means Ford must go to trial a third time but will be able to present a full defense, including raising questions about whether Melvin Hill had installed incorrect tires on his truck and if he and his wife were wearing their seatbelts incorrectly.
Interpreting a recent Georgia Supreme Court ruling, the appeals court said a state law prohibiting car companies from arguing vehicle occupants weren’t wearing seat belts doesn’t apply to evidence they were wearing belts improperly.
At the first trial, Gwinnett County Judge Shawn Bratton barred Ford’s expert witness from testifying about the cause of death and excluded evidence about their seatbelt use or any suggestion Melvin Hill’s driving was to blame. During trial, the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jonathan Eisenstat, testified Melvin Hill was killed by the roof crushing down on his head.
When asked if this was the cause of death, Ford’s expert, Dr. Thomas McNish, answered “no.”
The judge sanctioned Ford for violating his order and told the jury to disregard any evidence from Dr. McNish. Both sides moved for a mistrial, and the judge agreed with the plaintiffs.
Not only had Ford violated his pretrial order on cause of death, he ruled, but it caused the mistrial by bringing up other prohibited issues like “deliberately injecting the idea of seatbelt use, as relevant.”
In the second trial, before Judge Joseph Iannazzone, jurors were instructed Ford had caused the previous mistrial and several facts were established as a matter of law, including that the roof on the truck was dangerous and defective, that Ford was aware of this and that the Hills were killed because of the defect.
The only questions left for the jury were whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support punitive damages and payments for pain and suffering and how much to award.
The jury awarded $16 million for wrongful death, $8 million for pain and suffering, and $1.7 billion in punitive damages against Ford. (Under Georgia law, three-quarters of punitive damages after legal fees go to the state.)
Ford appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which said in an opinion authored by Judge Yvette Miller, it “must reluctantly vacate the jury’s verdict.”
The judge was justified ruling Ford’s expert was unqualified to determine the cause of death, the appeals court said. But the court went too far when it sanctioned Ford for talking about seatbelts.
Georgia law prohibits car manufacturers from even mentioning seat belts in defense against claims their products are dangerous. Ford presented a chart showing 97.4% of rollover accidents are survivable if occupants are wearing seatbelts, and a Ford expert, when asked about the chart later, said the low death rate was “a good thing, and good for them using their safety belts.”
That didn’t violate the law or pretrial orders, the appeals court said, since Ford didn’t elicit any testimony about the Hills specifically.
On retrial, the appeals court said, Ford may be allowed to bring up evidence the Hills had improperly tucked their shoulder belts under their arms. While the seatbelt defense is prohibited, the court said, that only applies to the question of whether they were worn at all.
Judge Wade Pagett dissented on that point, saying the appeals court seized upon dicta in a recent Georgia Supreme Court decision, not a formal holding.
The trial court also abused its discretion by sanctioning Ford for violating a pretrial order not to talk about driver fault. Ford questioned the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Eisenstadt, about the Georgia Bureau of Investigation not to insinuate Melvin Hill was at fault but to impeach Dr. Eisenstadt under rules prohibiting GBI employees from working as experts in cases the bureau is involved with. At the time, Dr. Eisenstadt was chief medical examiner at the GBI.
Finally, the court exceeded its authority with the pretrial evidence sanctions. Georgia law gives trial courts wide latitude to issue sanctions against plaintiffs and even dismiss their cases for violating court orders, but the same isn’t true for defendants.
While it is a serious matter to violate pretrial orders, the appeals court said, there was no precedent for stripping a defendant of defenses as a sanction.
On retrial, the court can issue whatever sanctions it thinks appropriate, but “issue preclusion,” or establishing certain facts as proven, is off the table.
“Because we vacate the trial court’s order imposing the issue preclusion sanctions, which almost completely prevented Ford from presenting a defense as to liability, we are also compelled to vacate the jury’s verdict and final judgment based on those sanctions, and we must remand for another trial to be conducted,” the court concluded.
On retrial, the court also must reconsider allowing evidence Melvin Hill told Pep Boys to install improper tires on the truck and that he had dangerous levels of prescription drugs in his system. The appeals court said the trial court also improperly excluded Ford’s scientific evidence on results from crash tests. The court upheld personal sanctions against Ford attorney Alana Thomas, but rejected sanctions against the rest of Ford’s lawyers.
The American Tort Reform Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation all submitted briefs in favor of Ford.